your LEO pension cut

[Kerplow]

[QUOTE=sandsnow;8734190]

Originally Posted by Kerplow

For the most part, they're hard working tax payers who are sick of being bent over by the state and extorted to pay for things they had no say in and do not agree with.
QUOTE]

Actually they did have a say in part of this crisis. In 1984 the voters (taxpayers) enacted Prop 21 which allowed Calpers to diversify investments. Some are of the opinion that Prop 21 played a big roll in where we are now. Of course hindsight is 20/20.

Do a google search under 1984 Prop 21

Thanks for the info, I was mostly referring to the huge pensions and pay that a small percentage of government workers have weaseled their way into. IMO they are the ones responsible for unleashing the wrath of the disgruntled taxpayer.

[sandsnow]

[QUOTE=Kerplow;8734223]

Originally Posted by sandsnow

Thanks for the info, I was mostly referring to the huge pensions and pay that a small percentage of government workers have weaseled their way into. IMO they are the ones responsible for unleashing the wrath of the disgruntled taxpayer.

More than likely the same bunch that convinced the legislature to put Prop 21 on the ballot. It's always a greedy few that ruin it for the rest of us.

[tbhracing]

[QUOTE=Kerplow;8734223]

Originally Posted by sandsnow

Thanks for the info, I was mostly referring to the huge pensions and pay that a small percentage of government workers have weaseled their way into. IMO they are the ones responsible for unleashing the wrath of the disgruntled taxpayer.

Back peddling there? Sorry brother, we in public safety have been getting the wrath of the tax payer for a long time now. It's not a small or concentrated issue.

[Jeepergeo]

Originally Posted by tanksoldier

I know pensions are being negotiated lower & later for new LEOs in CA (2.5@55 vs 3@50, etc) but can they reduce retirements for those already on the clock?

It will be interesting to see.

When they changed from 2.5% to 3% @ 50, the new formula seemed to have applied to even the years that were worked under the lower formula. So if things can rachet up, my gut feeling is that they will be found to rachet down as well. My guess is they will go to 2%@55 for the years going forward.

[Kerplow]

[QUOTE=tbhracing;8734309]

Originally Posted by Kerplow

Back peddling there? Sorry brother, we in public safety have been getting the wrath of the tax payer for a long time now. It's not a small or concentrated issue.

How am I back peddling?

[5shot]

Originally Posted by Jeepergeo

It will be interesting to see.

When they changed from 2.5% to 3% @ 50, the new formula seemed to have applied to even the years that were worked under the lower formula. So if things can rachet up, my gut feeling is that they will be found to rachet down as well.

Like I posted previously, it's been tried and failed.

http://www.cbmlaw.com/Templates/medi...at-2011-05.pdf

Note: At the time of this article, it was not known if Orange County would appeal the Ca. Supreme Court decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Orange County did not followup with a appeal, and dropped the case, finally taking the advice that most of the labor law attorneys they consulted had given them.

[tbhracing]

Originally Posted by 5shot

Like I posted previously, it's been tried and failed.

http://www.cbmlaw.com/Templates/medi...at-2011-05.pdf

Thanks for that link.

[GM4spd]

Interesting read,however, it appears most of the posters are police? I have
often wondered how fire dept personnel who work 3 days on and 3 days
off are allowed to work when they are on time off---is this correct? Do
police have this same type schedule? Just curious because I work in the
private sector and work 14 days on call and 14 days off but I am NOT
allowed to work on my time off. Thanks Pete

PS, as a side note it is a crappy deal where the public sector is getting hammered because of the politics but with a lousy economy I am not sure
if the situation is going to get better,the group as a whole is an easy mark.

[Kerplow]

Originally Posted by GM4spd

Interesting read,however, it appears most of the posters are police?

Well.... This is the Law Enforcement kibitzing forum....

[tbhracing]

Originally Posted by GM4spd

Interesting read,however, it appears most of the posters are police? I have
often wondered how fire dept personnel who work 3 days on and 3 days
off are allowed to work when they are on time off---is this correct? Do
police have this same type schedule? Just curious because I work in the
private sector and work 14 days on call and 14 days off but I am NOT
allowed to work on my time off. Thanks Pete

Pete- The Fire Department schedule and operations doesn't quite work like that.

As for the police section, yes this is for the cops. Some of us fire people are also Peace Officers and have some of the same benefits.

[5shot]

There is a lot of retirement safeguards in labor law and the state constitution. In 1994, my employer, Orange Co., the 6th largest county in the U.S., filed for bankruptcy. We didn't lose a penny in our retirement benefits.
In 2007, Orange County sued the Association that represents the Deputy Sheriff's and D.A. Investigators, in a attempt to reduce the previously negotiated retirement benefits. They took it all the way to the state Supreme Court, and lost. Again, we didn't lose a penny of our retirement benefits.

[vmcdonnell]

Originally Posted by cantcme

As for the question about do I know something: Stockton, Sac PD, Sac SO, San Jose and many others are laying off cops. Cops all over the state are getting pay cuts in the form of salary, benefits and PERS contributions.

Stockton PD is actually hiring 40 new officers now. Not that it's an indication that anything is any better around here, the city can't afford them even though we need them more than most cities in California.

[tbhracing]

Originally Posted by vmcdonnell

Stockton PD is actually hiring 40 new officers now. Not that it's an indication that anything is any better around here, the city can't afford them even though we need them more than most cities in California.

Do you by chance know if Stockton did this with a grant? Most places are hiring people with SAFER grants these days. The down side is when the money runs out, the employee most likely gets laid off.

[Dee_Dub]

Originally Posted by GM4spd

Interesting read,however, it appears most of the posters are police? I have
often wondered how fire dept personnel who work 3 days on and 3 days
off are allowed to work when they are on time off---is this correct? Do
police have this same type schedule? Just curious because I work in the
private sector and work 14 days on call and 14 days off but I am NOT
allowed to work on my time off. Thanks Pete

PS, as a side note it is a crappy deal where the public sector is getting hammered because of the politics but with a lousy economy I am not sure
if the situation is going to get better,the group as a whole is an easy mark.

The fire dept... it depends on what agency you work for. Most have a 100 rule that restricts you from working over 4 days (in a row without time off)... after 4 days depending on sleep and other factors you may need a break. On an assignment you can be held at work for 14 days, 28 days... ect it just depends on the situation. A lot of it depends on the directive or MOU.

[vmcdonnell]

Originally Posted by tbhracing

Do you by chance know if Stockton did this with a grant? Most places are hiring people with SAFER grants these days. The down side is when the money runs out, the employee most likely gets laid off.

From what I gather they have actual vacancies. The city cut pay so drastically that a lot of close-to-retiring officers chose early retirement to keep their pension pay up based on last pay and many left for other departments who paid better. The city lost a suit with the POA and their pay was restored (for now) as it was deemed a breach of contract. The city is on the verge of bankruptcy so I'm not sure they'll be able to maintain the numbers anyway, but for now, there are genuine vacancies.

[Jack L]

Originally Posted by GM4spd

Interesting read,however, it appears most of the posters are police? I have
often wondered how fire dept personnel who work 3 days on and 3 days
off are allowed to work when they are on time off---is this correct? Do
police have this same type schedule? Just curious because I work in the
private sector and work 14 days on call and 14 days off but I am NOT
allowed to work on my time off. Thanks Pete

PS, as a side note it is a crappy deal where the public sector is getting hammered because of the politics but with a lousy economy I am not sure
if the situation is going to get better,the group as a whole is an easy mark.

Pete,

Firefighters do not all work the same Kelly schedule. Many departments vote on what one they would like to work. The bottom line, most departments work a firefighter 240 hours a month using various schedules. And yes, overtime is allowed in may departments. Before our county set standards, back in the day I once worked 14, 24 hour shifts back to back. Now no more than 72 hours on then at least 24 hours off.

My wife has worked CAL FIRE for 30 years and during that time there have been numerous assaults on her contract but none were successful. She is at 3% @ 50, hanging it up in October. I went out with 3% @ 50. I thank CHP for that as they really lead the charge to get that as the norm if I remember correctly..and our people adopted that formula soon afterward.

RE: cantcme,

“Contracts mean absolutely nothing when the money runs out. Look up unfunded liabilities.”

If the money runs out there would be such chaos the nation would not resemble what we once knew it to be. Politicians are not ignorant enough to let a nation fail. And if it does happen, the entire population would be in revolt so I personally do not spend time thinking about it. I agree with your statement to live more on the austere side of life and actually pay for what you buy when the road is a bumpy as it is in times such as these. Meanwhile there are streets to police and fires to put out and the good fight continues.

[retired]

Originally Posted by tanksoldier

I know pensions are being negotiated lower & later for new LEOs in CA (2.5@55 vs 3@50, etc) but can they reduce retirements for those already on the clock?

From info from one of our guys on the Board of Retirement for LA County (retired sgt. I've known since I hit the jail), he said even those who are already retired may have something change. LA County doesn't have the 3@50 that a lot of depts. obtained, tho I of course, wish we had it. We were one of the few large depts. that did not obtain it.

The county has its own retirement system and is not part of CALPERS and is a lot more conservative with their investments. That is why they aren't in the same financial straits as CALPERS. We also don't contribute to SS. When I hired on in 1976, they did, but that ended in 1978.

I can only wait, as is everyone else, to see what develops.

[Falconis]

Originally Posted by Sunday

Happens in the private sector. A bud had a 30% cut in his retirement from United Airlines. Even the slop trough of the taxpayers has a bottom. but my cousin was a cop ,retired and died from a heart attack 10 years after retirement and I wouldn't want to be a cop for twice the pay.

Funny you mention that. That was one of the reasons the State agreed to give us 3 @50. A lot of cops don't live long enough after retirement to see the full benefit of their contributions .

[yzernie]

When we negotiated the 3@50 we gave up pay raises for a couple years AND paid additional monies into the retirement system for the same time period.

I laugh when I read people slamming us for our retirements. I could list so many reasons why we deserve it but Mr. Cubicle Worker or someone who has no clue what we go through in our careers would never understand.

[TRICKSTER]

Originally Posted by yzernie

When we negotiated the 3@50 we gave up pay raises for a couple years AND paid additional monies into the retirement system for the same time period.

I laugh when I read people slamming us for our retirements. I could list so many reasons why we deserve it but Mr. Cubicle Worker or someone who has no clue what we go through in our careers would never understand.

Same here. I wonder if those who want to take away those retirement benefits that were paid for by employees not taking those raises would be willing to pay, with interest, the back pay lost by every employee who gave up that raise in lieu of retirement benefits.
How hard is it for people to understand that the majority of those benefits were paid for by taking a smaller or no raise. What they want now would be like if we had taken the raise instead of the benefits, and now years later, demanding that we pay the money back.

[Falconis]

It's no surprise the state is doing this. It IS legal thievery in a way. I remember being told that before I was ever hired on, my predecessors gave up raises in lieu of the city paying for our 9% retirement contributions. In the end (at the time) we in effect got a raise.

Well 30 years later when the crash happened, they went after us for not paying into our retirement system like we were the bandits. Like you said above, nevermind what not receiving the raises cost us and never mind how the officers helped the city. All that was forgotten out of convenience when they decided to come after cops' pays to make up for shortfalls the city got themselves into.

[5shot]

Originally Posted by TRICKSTER

Same here. I wonder if those who want to take away those retirement benefits that were paid for by employees not taking those raises would be willing to pay, with interest, the back pay lost by every employee who gave up that raise in lieu of retirement benefits.
How hard is it for people to understand that the majority of those benefits were paid for by taking a smaller or no raise. What they want now would be like if we had taken the raise instead of the benefits, and now years later, demanding that we pay the money back.

Exactly. For some reason the politicians, media, etc have convinced people that public employees just get these benefits as a extra freebie, and that they hold the public hostage to get them.
Historically, public employees have been paid lower wages then the private sector.

[tbhracing]

Originally Posted by yzernie

I laugh when I read people slamming us for our retirements. I could list so many reasons why we deserve it but Mr. Cubicle Worker or someone who has no clue what we go through in our careers would never understand.

THANK YOU!!! The general public just doesn't get it and some morons on this board keep thinking they are getting screwed but can't really show how or when it ever happened.

The cubical workers or desk jockeys don't get it, have never attended an academy or paid any dues. The same guys have never been in the field, been on a tactical alert or been on an extended incident or strike team.

It's these BS FUD threads that get old and are usually way off basis.

[sandsnow]

Originally Posted by 5shot

Exactly. For some reason the politicians, media, etc have convinced people that public employees just get these benefits as a extra freebie, and that they hold the public hostage to get them.
Historically, public employees have been paid lower wages then the private sector.

Unfortunately the masses do not want to hear the truth. They live on talking points. Analysis is beyond their attention span.
Since the media has them so riled up, the only thing that will satisfy them is a complete gut of the public pension program.
I'm sure that many people think the City of Bell scandal is standard operating procedure for local all the way up to state goverment.
Face it. Whether you're sworn or non-sworn, in the eye of the masses, you are the bad guy right now.

[TRICKSTER]

Originally Posted by tbhracing

THANK YOU!!! The general public just doesn't get it and some morons on this board keep thinking they are getting screwed but can't really show how or when it ever happened.

The cubical workers or desk jockeys don't get it, have never attended an academy or paid any dues. The same guys have never been in the field, been on a tactical alert or been on an extended incident or strike team.

It's these BS FUD threads that get old and are usually way off basis.

Next time someone complains just tell them this.
You remember the three largest raises that you got over the last 30 years? Well times are tough and you have to give all the money that you made off those raises, compounded with interest over those years back.

[Jeepergeo]

Originally Posted by Sunday

Happens in the private sector. A bud had a 30% cut in his retirement from United Airlines. Even the slop trough of the taxpayers has a bottom. but my cousin was a cop ,retired and died from a heart attack 10 years after retirement and I wouldn't want to be a cop for twice the pay.

PD job openings get a huge number of applicants, so at some point, supply and demand needs to prevail when it comes to wages and benefits. Granted, the job is not for everyone, but there remains a huge line of potentially interested and qualified candidates.

If concessions are not made, the alternative will be to cut positions, and while undesirable to many if not most taxpayers, they are likely to accept the cuts since the trough you mentioned has run dry.

It is interesting to see government employee unions selling out future government employees, creating two tier systems of benefits. Imagine having to rely on a guy covering your back that a few years earlier you voted to screw with a lower tier of pay and benefits. I suppose you could assign partners based on what benefit tier they were on.

The radio news today (John and Ken) reported like 30% of teachers and like 50% of other government union candidates in Wisconsin are refusing to join and pay dues. Those numbers seem too high, but that is what the flame masters reported today.

[5shot]

Originally Posted by Jeepergeo

PD job openings get a huge number of applicants, so at some point, supply and demand needs to prevail when it comes to wages and benefits. Granted, the job is not for everyone, but there remains a huge line of potentially interested and qualified candidates.

History doesn't support this theory. Law enforcement jobs are usually only hugely popular when the economy is bad. Then the applicants are pounding on the door wanting the jobs they wouldn't even consider in a good economy. Many of these people are well educated, and well qualified. But when the economy picks up again, many will leave their government jobs for the better pay, schedules, and working conditions in the private sector.
Before this current recession it was common for police and sheriff's recruiters to have to travel around the country looking for qualified applicants. One of the OCSD background investigators at that time told me that for every 200 applicants they got, they were lucky to get 5-10 that would make the final cut.

[East Bay Cop]

Originally Posted by Bobby Ricigliano

And yet every parolee I stop has an EBT card.

The welfare state is the problem. Not the people that suit up every day to do the Lord's work.

You and me both brother, its disgusting...

[Jeepergeo]

Originally Posted by 5shot

History doesn't support this theory. Law enforcement jobs are usually only hugely popular when the economy is bad. Then the applicants are pounding on the door wanting the jobs they wouldn't even consider in a good economy. Many of these people are well educated, and well qualified. But when the economy picks up again, many will leave their government jobs for the better pay, schedules, and working conditions in the private sector.
Before this current recession it was common for police and sheriff's recruiters to have to travel around the country looking for qualified applicants. One of the OCSD background investigators at that time told me that for every 200 applicants they got, they were lucky to get 5-10 that would make the final cut.

No doubt, the economy has a huge impact on the number od applicants. Finding 10 out of 200 seems like a reasonable result, and maybe that pares down during training to 5, which seems reasonable.

Fire service seems to have about the same.

Compare those to lifeguards. For the same 200 applicants, maybe 2 make it into the ranks.

In the private sector, the expectation is that the applicant comes trained and ready to work. There is no paid academy as private sector folks for the most part bring their education and training to the job, an education that may have cost them $50K to $200K.

The point is that public sector work and private sector work and the associated benefits need to come into parity, or something is going to snap. For reasons good and bad, the gap has become too wide, here and abroad. Just look at Greece, Spain, Ireland, and the U.S. now...they have way too much in common, and those points in common are not good. Hopefully the US can prevent a Tradgedy of the Commons with the public workforce.

[5shot]

Yes, it would be nice if public employees salaries were someday brought up to the levels of equivalent jobs in the private sector. But as most of the studies show, other then some rare abuses like the City of Bell, on a average public employee salaries are always going to be lower then those in the private sector.

[Jack L]

Law Enforcement is in a special category. There are few if any private sector jobs that have the risk to the employee. The pubic conveniently forgets about this and/or has never been on the receiving end of LE’s good work. How many private sector employees work a shift wearing body armor and a firearm to protect the public? It is morally correct to compensate LE appropriately.

[tbhracing]

Looks like there is going to NO change in the future- Challenge to pension reform moves forward,
Labor scores two legal victories in Prop. B battle

Labor unions have scored two separate legal victories in the past week in their push to invalidate San Diego’s pension reform initiative, which voters overwhelmingly approved earlier this month.

[Che762x39]

I am retired now.

But I was wondering what do you think about giving 90% to everyone on the job? I am not a math genius but one day you are on the beat at 100%, the next day you retire and you get 90%. Does this make sense? Being from a military family and then being a Marine I always figured 50% was fair.

What about teachers, nurses, et al?

[Heiko]

On the somewhat off topic subject of how wasteful California is with career criminals collecting welfare in various forms, I about crapped myself when I had a case with a woman who had been convicted of felony welfare fraud and was ordered to pay restitution but the restitution was being held back from her, you guessed it, WELFARE PAYMENTS! You'd think that once you get convicted of welfare fraud that you don't get it any more but I guess not in the Golden State.

Pretty soon we will be paying our CalPERS employee contribution and the employer contribution for a total of around 18%. Many of us are already paying 9% just so the politicians can boast about how they are taking away the generous pensions of public employees.

[jvpark]

I did not take the time to review the whole thread but I can tell you all defined benefit plans (your pension) are insured up to $54k. I don't care which spokeshole is lying to you, public pensions are underfunded. Which means when your too old to go back to work, well into your retirement, your pension will be cut. Why? Because th benefits are not sustainable. Too little contributions for too much benefits. It's not science or some sophicated calculation. Just simple math... This is coming from a guy with 23+ years in the financial services industry. Sorry.

[jvpark]

Originally Posted by Jack L

Law Enforcement is in a special category. There are few if any private sector jobs that have the risk to the employee. The pubic conveniently forgets about this and/or has never been on the receiving end of LE’s good work. How many private sector employees work a shift wearing body armor and a firearm to protect the public? It is morally correct to compensate LE appropriately.

Seriously?
"Morally correct to compensate LE appropriately?" What's fair? 50%, 70% 90% for salary? Who knows but whatever the amount, it's not enough and NOT enough and not sustainable.

[TRICKSTER]

Originally Posted by jvpark

I did not take the time to review the whole thread but I can tell you all defined benefit plans (your pension) are insured up to $54k. I don't care which spokeshole is lying to you, public pensions are underfunded. Which means when your too old to go back to work, well into your retirement, your pension will be cut. Why? Because th benefits are not sustainable. Too little contributions for too much benefits. It's not science or some sophicated calculation. Just simple math... This is coming from a guy with 23+ years in the financial services industry. Sorry.

Have any sources to back up that claim?
You do understand that we are not talking about private defined benefit pension plans.

[WnP]

I'm a Civil Servant in SoCal and most of the pensions systems are now starting to seem unrealistic. I have about 20 to 25 years to go before I retire and I see major changes underway regardless of what has been promised and to whom. Most defined pension plans try to shoot for a 7 to 8 percent growth rate per year but this recession has proven that is soon going away and that will affect pension plans long term. I believe, that in LA Police and Fire account for 70 percent of the city's budget. This is a big problem.

[yzernie]

Originally Posted by WnP

I'm a Civil Servant in SoCal and most of the pensions systems are now starting to seem unrealistic. I have about 20 to 25 years to go before I retire

"Civil Servant"? In what capacity? If you're a cop review this answer again in "20 to 25 years" and see if your experiences and worn out body says your retirement "seems unrealistic". Laughable.

[tbhracing]

Originally Posted by Che762x39

I am retired now.

But I was wondering what do you think about giving 90% to everyone on the job? I am not a math genius but one day you are on the beat at 100%, the next day you retire and you get 90%. Does this make sense? Being from a military family and then being a Marine I always figured 50% was fair.

What about teachers, nurses, et al?

Too much FUD out there on this. NOT everyone gets a 3%@50 retirement, ONLY safety. Second, not every one leaves at age 50 or 55. ONLY people that put in 30 years which is very rare to find.

The picture is not as pretty as some people and media make it out to be.